Choudhri v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Choudhri v. New York City Department of Education

49 A.D.3d 299, 852 N.Y.2d 133

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 6, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 299 (Choudhri v. New York City Department of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Choudhri v. New York City Department of Education, 49 A.D.3d 299, 852 N.Y.2d 133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

There was substantial evidence in the record to support the [300]*300charges of misconduct based upon petitioner’s undisputed acts of insubordination relating to his excessive use of the Internet for nonbusiness reasons. Given that evidence, combined with petitioner’s many disruptive absences, late arrivals, and early departures, the determination to terminate petitioner’s employment was not so disproportionate as to shock the judicial conscience (see Matter of Martinez v City of New York, 281 AD2d 187 [2001]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that his due process rights were violated, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

There was substantial evidence in the record to support the [300]*300charges of misconduct based upon petitioner’s undisputed acts of insubordination relating to his excessive use of the Internet for nonbusiness reasons. Given that evidence, combined with petitioner’s many disruptive absences, late arrivals, and early departures, the determination to terminate petitioner’s employment was not so disproportionate as to shock the judicial conscience (see Matter of Martinez v City of New York, 281 AD2d 187 [2001]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that his due process rights were violated, and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 299, 852 N.Y.2d 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/choudhri-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack